<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Min Kyung Kim</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jongwon Park</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">LINKING SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS WITH STUDENTS’ PERSONAL DAILY LIVES: USING THE METAPHYSICAL MEANING OF SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Everyday Context</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kuhn’s Paradigm</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Metaphysical Principle</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">scientific concepts</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2024</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">October/2024</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://oaji.net/articles/2023/987-1729494367.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">23</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Continuous</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The declining interest in science learning, along with students' perception that science is irrelevant to their daily lives, has been identified as a significant issue. This research aimed to help students connect abstract scientific concepts with their personal and everyday experiences. To achieve this, the research utilized the metaphysical principles implied by scientific concepts, a component of Kuhn’s paradigm. To replace the abstract term ‘metaphysical meanings’, the term ‘Meaning of Life implied by Scientific Concepts’ (MLS) was introduced to make these metaphysical principles more accessible and comprehensible for students. Using MLS, activity sheets were developed and implemented with 57 lower-secondary students. The results showed that students could effectively identify real-life examples of the presented MLS, the number of students who successfully generated MLS increased with additional class sessions, and the content of the MLS expressed by the students was thoughtful and meaningful. Post-activity interviews indicated that students found this approach interesting and helpful for understanding concepts, and teachers were impressed by the quality of the students' work, expressing a desire to implement this approach in their classes. It is concluded that using MLS to connect abstract scientific concepts with students' everyday lives is both feasible and applicable in school science.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">882-898</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jongwon Park</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hye-Gyoung Yoon</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Insun Lee</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">RESEARCH-BASED TEACHING: ANALYZING SCIENCE TEACHERS’ PROCESS OF UNDERSTANDING AND USING ACADEMIC PAPERS TO TEACH SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">case study</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">research-based teaching</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">scientific creativity</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">teacher’s learning process</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">teaching plan</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2023</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">February/2023</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://oaji.net/articles/2023/987-1676960659.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">22</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Continuous</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Postulating that academic papers can positively impact the actual teaching practices of science teachers, this study analysed the process of understanding and utilising academic papers by science teachers to teach scientific creativity in their schools. The 45–hour graduate course of three science teachers was explored to identify the difficulties teachers encountered in trying to understand academic papers and to discover how to solve these difficulties. Second, which aspects should be considered when developing teaching materials for scientific creativity to be used in schools were analysed. A transformation model of an academic paper was proposed to understand this process, and the results were organised accordingly. According to this model, it was emphasized to translate academic papers from a general and abstract state to a local and concrete state. Therefore, the role of science educators as knowledge translators was discussed for more practical and effective use of academic papers in school. This study is expected to contribute to research-based teaching by linking academic research with teaching practice.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">57-72</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Insun Lee</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jongwon Park</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hye-Gyong Yoon</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">SCIENCE TEACHERS’ THEORY-BASED TEACHING: CONNECTING A LEARNING CYCLE MODEL TO A LESSON PLAN</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">abductive thinking</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">hypothesis generation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">learning cycle</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">lesson plan</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">theory-based teaching</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2022</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">June/2022</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://oaji.net/articles/2022/987-1665989238.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">21</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Continuous</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">This research examined theory-based teaching processes of science teachers to understand the mechanism by which theory and practice were connected. Four science teachers desgined lesson plans by applying the empirical-abductive learning cycle (EALC) model and modified lesson plans through a collaborative interview with the researcher. Data were obtained from lesson plans and interviews. Using the constant comparison method with open coding, data were analyzed to find out obstacles or facilitators acted in the process of applying the EALC model to design lesson plans and reveal the path through which theory and practice were connected. As a result, it was found that perceptive prejudice about the role and necessity of the EALC model was the main obstacle. The collaboration process helped teachers understand the EALC model clearly and deeply. The development of this cognitive understanding changed their prejudice about the EALC model and led them to reflect their teaching practices with the eyes of theory. Through this process, a separated state between theory and practice was developed to a connected state. With the belief that it is a good starting point for coordination between theory and practice, further studies are proposed.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">462-480</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jongwon Park</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hye-Gyoung Yoon</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mijung Kim</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hunkoog Jho</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">THE NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING SCIENCE</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence evaluation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based reasoning</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based response</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">idea-based response</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">scientific evidence</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2021</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">October/2021</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2021/987-1633680841.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">20</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Continuous</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Scientific evidence-based reasoning has been recognized as a form of reasoning that characterizes scientific thinking. This study questioned what scientific evidence means in the various types of scientific activities; that is, this study explored the nature of scientific evidence (NOSE). To do this, previous studies were examined to understand how scientific evidence was analyzed, evaluated, and utilized during the scientific activities of scientists or students in scientific or everyday situations. Through this process, seven statements were identified to describe the NOSE. This study explains these seven NOSE statements, constructs a process of scientific evidence-based reasoning as a structured form by reflecting these seven statements comprehensively, and discusses the practical implications for teaching science in schools. Finally, the limitations of this study are discussed, and possible directions for future studies are suggested. It is believed that the list of NOSE characteristics can provide a starting point for further elucidation and discussion of scientific evidence and helping students’ science learning in more authentic ways.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">840-856</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Insun Lee</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jongwon Park</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">STUDENT, PARENT AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS ON THE BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY AND THE IMPLICATIONS TO ENHANCE STUDENTS' SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">behavioral characteristics</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">creative environment</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">creativity perception</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">scientific creativity</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2021</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">February/2021</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2021/987-1611648718.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">20</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Continuous</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Teachers’ and parents’ perceptions of scientific creativity are assumed to be an important environmental factor for scientific creativity, so this research surveyed their perceptions of the behavioral characteristics of scientific creativity and compared their perceptions to those of students. This is achieved with a list of behavioral characteristics of creative physicists during their growth period. For this survey, 48 science teachers, 112 parents, and 145 science gifted students participated. Out of the 30 items of the list, they selected 10 items that were considered important indicators to become creative scientists in the future, and they ranked them according to their importance. The results showed that the three groups all perceived ‘conducting experiments, asking questions, thinking logically to solve difficult problems, and sharing ideas’ as important for scientific creativity. For the items that were perceived to be less important, it was discussed why these items might be necessary for scientific creativity. Comparative result showed that parents gave more importance to learning-related aspects, teachers to thinking-related aspects, and students to activities such as making and experimenting. This research showed the behavioral characteristics that should be encouraged to improve students’ scientific creativity at school and at home.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">67-79</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hwoe-gwan Yang</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jongwon Park</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">IDENTIFYING AND APPLYING FACTORS CONSIDERED IMPORTANT IN STUDENTS’ EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN IN SCIENTIFIC OPEN INQUIRY</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">checklist</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">experimental design</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">gifted education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">scientific open inquiry</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2017</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">December/2017</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2017/987-1513971123.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">16</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Continuous</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Even though experimental design (ED) in open inquiry is important for more authentic scientific inquiry, it is not easy for students. The objective of this research was to identify factors considered important in students' ED and explore how to utilize it to improve students’ ED. To achieve the objective, in the first step, eighteen middle-school students in a gifted center participated in this study voluntarily. They were asked to design experimental procedures without any guidelines or help. Students’ EDs were analyzed qualitatively to extract difficulties that students experienced when designing experimental procedures. Based on analysis results, 17 factors were identified as factors to be considered for students’ ED and structured in a form of checklist. In the second step, the checklist was provided to 50 students in the gifted center as guidelines for their ED. They were then asked to design experimental procedures. Comparing scores of these students’ ED with those of the control group, it was found that these factors were significantly effective for improving students’ ED with high effect size. In conclusion, results of this research suggest that effective teaching strategy for students’ ED in scientific open inquiry can be obtained based on analysis about their difficulties in ED.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">932-945</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jongwon Park</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Youngmin Kim</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jongseok Park</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jin-Su Jeong</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Young-Shin Park</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">KOREAN SCIENCE TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS AND ACTUAL USAGE OF EDUCATIONAL THEORIES/TEACHING STRATEGIES IN THEIR TEACHING</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">science teacher education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">secondary science teacher</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">teaching strategy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">theory-practice gap</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2016</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">August/2016</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2016/987-1482423597.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">15</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Continuous</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Many researchers have reported that there is a significant gap between theory and practice in education. This research sought to contribute to this work by examining the theory/practice gap in secondary school science teaching in South Korea. To do this, a questionnaire was developed to investigate the gap between Korean science teachers’ knowledge about Educational Theories and Teaching Strategies (ETTS) and the usage of it in their science classroom. The questionnaire was administered to 87 science teachers and results showed that even though participants were knowledgeable about many ETTS, only 26% of the teachers reported using it in their teaching. Major reasons reported for this gap in theory and practice were restrictive educational environments that did not support the use of ETTS, irrelevancy and difficulties of ETTS, and students' low interest in learning science. However, teachers’ perception of the importance of ETTS positively affected their usage of ETTS. Implications of the results are discussed, and alternative in-service training program is suggested to activate science teachers’ ETTS what they already know and to guide them to use ETTS in their actual science teaching.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">411–423</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Daehyeok Kang</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jongwon Park</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hanghwa Hong</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CHANGES IN THE NUMBER OF IDEAS DEPENDING ON TIME WHEN CONDUCTING SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY ACTIVITIES</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">gifted education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">scientific creativity</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">teaching creativity</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">August/2015</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2016/987-1479497961.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">14</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Continuous</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Teaching creativity is one of the major goals of science class. This study examined how much time is necessary to conduct a scientific creativity task requiring fluency in middle schools. To accomplish this, 76 and 45 scientifically gifted and ordinary students respectively generated as many ideas as possible for the creativity task. The results revealed that ordinary students spent, on average, approximately 20 minutes to generate 3.49 ideas per student. However, gifted students concentrated on the task for a longer time (roughly 60 minutes), and consequently generated greater (11.53) and more elaborate ideas. In comparing the ordinary students’ fluency with their school science scores, no relationship was found between them. This indicates that only teaching science cannot guarantee the development of creativity. Therefore, it is concluded that teaching fluency in middle schools is necessary and can possibly encourage creativity, provided that teachers can secure a minimal amount of time required to do so. Finally, the limitations of this study and further studies are discussed.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">448–459</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jongwon Park</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Youngmin Kim</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Young-Shin Park</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jongseok Park</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jin-Su Jeong</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF THE PRACTICAL ON-SITE COOPERATION MODEL (POCoM) FOR IMPROVING SCIENCE TEACHING IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cooperative model</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">in-service teacher</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">observational protocol</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">professional development</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">science teaching</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">February/2015</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2016/987-1462908155.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">14</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Continuous</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">This study aimed to improve science teaching in a practical way by activating teachers’ potential teaching expertise or professional knowledge. We developed an alternative in-service approach, the Practical On-site Cooperation Model (POCoM), according to the following principles: (1) the “bottom-up” approach, where observed problems in science classes are improved practically and immediately without any pre-determined teaching plan or materials; (2) “cooperation” between researchers and teachers to improve teaching; (3) “naturalistic settings” where various real problems occur in actual teaching and learning situations; and (4) “gradual improvement” rather than revolutionary change. The POCoM was applied with three science teachers, and 24 classes were observed. We found about 65%–96% teaching improvement. The analysis of the cooperation processes and science teaching in classrooms identified seven types of successful improvements and five types of unsatisfactory cases, including their reasons and features. </style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">45-63</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jongwon Park</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Young-Shin Park</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Youngmin Kim</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jongseok Park</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jin-Su Jeong</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE KOREAN TEACHING OBSERVATION PROTOCOL (KTOP) FOR IMPROVING SCIENCE TEACHING AND LEARNING</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">analysis of science teaching</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">improving science teaching</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">observational instrument</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2014</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">April/2014</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2015/987-1437063408.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">13</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Continuous</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">An observational instrument called the KTOP (Korean Teaching Observation Protocol) was developed to analyze science teaching and to identify the components of teaching that need improvement. To diminish the gap between theory and practice in science teaching, the method for developing the KTOP was structured as consisting of three steps: the first version of the KTOP was developed through direct observation of science classes at the first step, revised through literature review with consideration of the Korean national curriculum and comparison with other observational instruments in the second step, and finalized after application to actual teaching context. As a result, the KTOP was determined to consist of 30 items of 10 sub-categories in 4 main categories. The content was validated through 48 teachers’ responses to the questions asking if each indicator of the KTOP is worthwhile to be considered in their teaching. Reliability was obtained by agreement (72~90%) and correlation (r=0.90) among observers’ KTOP scores. Finally, the cases of applying the KTOP to improve science classes and to develop teachers’ expertise through an in-service program were described.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">259-275</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jongwon Park</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY IN SCIENCE EDUCATION</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">analogical thinking</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">science education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">scientific creativity</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">September/2011</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2014/987-1410547126.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Divergent thinking, which indicates the capacity to generate multiple alternatives or solutions, received attention as a component of creative thinking after the “Sputnik shock” of the late 1950s. Since then, numerous special programs for fostering creativity in convergent, critical, associational or analogical thinking have been developed. As a result, an article in 1993 reported that there were about 250 programs for improving creativity, and in 1998, a researcher classified various teaching strategies used in the programs into 170 types.
Therefore, I with my colleagues have recently started to develop a new model called the ‘small-scale iterative experiences for teaching scientific creativity’. The following studies will focus on finding alternative ways to incorporate this model into the ordinary science curriculum, and to measure the effectiveness of these methods in improving creativity. Furthermore, we will strive for an additional proof that these ways of creative thinking are still in contact with the nature of learning science in understanding scientific knowledge, conducting scientific inquiry, as well as in nourishing scientific thinking. On a final note, I hope I have inspired a healthy curiosity on the subject matter of scientific creativity, for more authentic science teaching and learning experiences to come with many science educators.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Editorial</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">144-145 </style></section></record></records></xml>